POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 40
(a) (Beraisa): An Apotropus pays from the Aliyah (not from
the animal); he does not pay Kofer.
2) RESPONSIBILITY OF A BORROWER
(b) Question: Who is this Tana, that holds that Kofer is for
atonement, and orphans do not need atonement?
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben
1. (Beraisa): "He will give the redemption of his soul"
- the value of the victim;
(d) Question (R. Acha bar Yakov): The ox of 2 partners - how
does it pay Kofer?
i. R. Yishmael says, the value of the (owner of
2. Suggestion: Chachamim hold, Kofer is a payment for
damage; R. Yishmael holds, it is an atonement.
3. Rejection (Rav Papa): No, all hold it is an
atonement - they argue, how do we assess how much is
4. Question: Why do Chachamim say the value of the
5. Answer: Shisa (an assessment) is said by
compensation for an aborted fetus, and by Kofer
(when a Mu'ad killed); just as by the fetus, we
evaluate by the victim, also by Kofer.
6. R. Yishmael learns from "He will give the redemption
of his soul" (the damager needs to redeem his soul).
7. Chachamim agree (that the damager needs to redeem
his soul) - but the payment is as the value of the
1. Each cannot pay - the Torah said (1) Kofer, not 2!
(e) Question #2 (R. Acha bar Yakov - Mishnah): The Gizbar
(treasurer of Hekdesh) take pledges from people that
pledged Erchin (to give a person's value to Hekdesh), but
not from people who are obligated to bring sin-offerings
2. Each cannot pay half - the Torah said (a full)
Kofer, not a half-Kofer!
1. Question: Does he take pledges from people obligated
to pay Kofer?
(f) Rav Nachman: I am still struggling with the first
i. Since it is an atonement, people are concerned
to bring it, it is as sin and burnt-offerings,
he need not take pledges;
ii. Or - since it is paid to a person and not to
Hekdesh, people take it lightly, he takes
iii. Alternatively - since the person himself did
not damage, people take it lightly, he takes
(a) (Beraisa): Reuven lent Shimon an ox. He told him that it
is Tam; it was found to be Mu'ad. (It damaged) - each
1. If it was Tam and became Mu'ad by Shimon and he
returned it (and then it damaged), Reuven pays
half-damage, Shimon is exempt.
(b) Question: In the first case, why does Shimon pay half -
he can say, I didn't know this was a gorer!
(c) Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, he knew it was a gorer (but
not that it had gored 3 times).
1. Question: Still, he can say, I only intended to
borrow a Tam!
2. Answer: In any case, he would be responsible for
half-damage - that is all we ask him to pay!
3. Question: Shimon can say, a Tam only pays from the
animal (not from my money)!
4. Answer: In any case, if the animal was collected,
Shimon could not return it and would have to
3) A CHANGE IN JURISDICTION
5. Question: Shimon can say, by a Tam, I could have
admitted to the damage, and be exempt!
(d) Answer #2: Rather, the case is, Beis Din seized the
i. Even according to the opinion that half-damage
is principle (and one who admits also pays) -
he could have hid the animal from Beis Din, to
evade payment! (Tosfos - i.e. by a Tam, one can
persuade the damagee to agree to a small
(e) Question: If so, why does Reuven pays half - he can say,
you put my animal where I cannot retrieve it!
(f) Answer: Shimon can say, even if I returned it to you,
Beis Din would have taken it.
(g) Question: Reuven can say, I could have hidden the animal!
(h) Answer: That doesn't help by a Mu'ad.
(i) Question: That answer is only if Reuven has other
property Beis Din can collect from;
1. If Reuven has no other property, what can we say?
(j) Answer: Shimon can say, just as I owe you (the return of
your animal), I owe the damagee (since you owe him), by
R. Noson's law (so you cannot blame me for letting Beis
Din take it).
1. (R. Noson): "He will give to the one he sinned
against" - this shows that if Levi owes David and
David owes Moshe, we take from Levi to pay Moshe.
(a) (Beraisa): If it was Tam and became Mu'ad by Shimon and
he returned it (and then it damaged), Reuven pays
half-damage, Shimon is exempt.
4) AN OX TRAINED TO GORE
(b) Question: The end of the Beraisa holds that a change in
jurisdiction changes status of the ox, the beginning of
the Beraisa says it does not!
(c) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Different Tana'im taught the 2
(d) Answer #2 (Rabah): It is all as 1 Tana. From the first
clause, we see that a change in jurisdiction does not
change status of the ox;
1. The reason for the second clause is that Shimon's
negligence cannot cause Reuven's ox to be considered
Mu'ad by Reuven.
(e) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): It is all as 1 Tana. From the last
clause, we see that a change in jurisdiction changes
status of the ox;
1. The reason for the first clause is that it is always
considered Reuven's ox (giving to a watchman is not
a change in jurisdiction).
(a) (Mishnah): An Itztadin (stadium) ox is not killed...
(b) Question: May it be offered as a sacrifice?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav): Yes - it was forced (to gore).
(d) Answer #2 (Shmuel): No - a sin was done with it.
(e) Question (Beraisa): "From the animals" - to exclude a
Rove'a or Nirva (an animal that had relations with a
woman or man); "from the cattle" - to exclude an animal
served as idolatry; "from the flock" - to exclude an
animal designated for idolatry; "and from the flock" - to
exclude a gorer (that killed).
1. R. Shimon: It must exclude both a Rove'a and a
gorer, for each has different laws.
(f) Answer: No - it refers to being killed.
i. By a Rove'a, the law is the same whether it was
forced or not; this is not so by a gorer.
2. Suggestion: When R. Shimon says that by Rove'a, the
law is the same whether it was forced or not; this
is not so by a gorer - this refers to (being
disqualified as) a sacrifice.
ii. A gorer pays Kofer, a Rove'a does not.
1. Support: Presumably, it does not refer to a
sacrifice - the Torah did not explicitly distinguish
that it is only disqualified when it was not forced
(and R. Shimon considers this distinction obvious).
(g) (Beraisa): A gorer pays Kofer, a Rove'a does not.
(h) Question: What is the case (when a Rove'a does not pay
1. Suggestion: If it killed through relations - why
should this be different than killing with its
(i) Answer #! (Abaye): Really, it had relations and did not
kill; the woman (it had relations with) was killed by
2. Suggestion: If it had relations and did not kill -
it is exempt from Kofer because it did not kill
(this is not a stringency of a gorer)!
1. One might have thought, this is as killing her - we
hear, this is not so.
(j) Answer #2 (Rava): Really, it killed through relations;
this is different than goring, for a gorer intends to
kill, this animal intended for its own benefit.
(k) Question: On what do they argue?
(l) Answer: If an ox trampled a baby in the damagee's
1. According to Abaye, it pays Kofer; according to
Rava, (the Tana of the Beraisa says) it does not.
(m) Support (for Rav (4:c) - Beraisa): An Itztadin ox is not
killed, and it is acceptable as a sacrifice, because it
is as if it is forced.